A short rant brought to to by those-who-are-peeping-the-game.
Well, the tug ‘o war is still happening in romance writing.
Especially when it comes to, - here
comes that word – “multicultural” romance writing. Yanno, when at least one of the
main characters is NOT White. A whole
lot of shaking has been going on since, I really can’t remember, but it’s been
going on awhile. The whole “Who can write whom? Why does who want to write
whom? Will who write whom in a real way?” And on and on. Romance writers who
are White, by and large, write whatever the hell they want. As they should. What
is the argument then? The 800-lb. elephant in the room has never been, “You
shouldn’t write a non-White or non-binary character!” Nooooooooooo! The issue
has ALWAYS been, “Why are y’all the default, go-to writer to pen everything
that readers might express an interest in reading?” Okay. Now that that is
cleared up, let’s follow the trajectory. The first “multicultural” romances
were seen as such because they usually depicted a White heroine discovering
another culture through the non-White, or half-White hero. Recall those sappy
Westerns from the 70s, 80s? A hero so stupidly smitten by her “alabaster skin”
that he lost all reason from the second he laid eyes on her. Blah. Blah. Blah.
He either kidnapped her to get her, or would leave his own people to have her. Multicultural
was so vaguely defined that men from Italy, Greece and Spain were labelled
“exotic.” As for the thoughts of the heroine about the guy, she usually
compared him “wild, untamed, unfamiliar” land he came from. I could say that
about Greek yogurt. Oy.
Now, I am not sure but the first romance writers in the
LBGTQ+ community were from those communities, but the offerings were not viewed
as romances. They were memoirs or coming-of-age stories as opposed to mass-market
romance fiction. Time marched on and the readers of the Liberated White Heroine
school devoured the “multicultural” books with that brownish hero. Readers
could scratch their itch safely by reading about “forbidden love” with the
other. “Wow! It’s so real! I feel like I’m in Barcelona!” LBGTQ+ memoirs or
fiction stayed with that community more or less. Then the romance market
changed. A new influx of readers wanted to read about the imaginary romantic
lives of people not often written about. To answer the call, White writers to
the rescue again. Mainly female writers. But this time writers who were from
the actual marginalized communities desired to have their voices heard. They
had story ideas where the characters sounded more authentic and were not in the
story for titillation. Get my drift? A few got their manuscripts accepted, and
the view of the non-White and LBGTQ+ in love changed. It also sold. But miracle
of miracles, without much help from their publishers, the new authors sold. So
what happens when success is achieved and others want some? You guessed it.
Already established White writers stewed because, hey, they wanted even more of
the pie they were already bogarting.
So, White writers started studying the romance books written
by non-White writers and LBGTQ+ writers to see what was making them stand out. They
were looking to reproduce the success. Well, they learned and before you knew
it, those writers became the go-to writers for ANYTHING in non-White or LBGTQ+
romance, in addition to all things White in romance writing. Déjà vu all over
again. Imitation is supposed to be the highest form of flattery? Um, er, um,
no. It’s stealing. They like to call it borrowing. Okay. But I see you. Five,
well-known, White writers come to my mind immediately who have worked “borrowing”
to their advantage. They latched onto the rhythm of “others,” ran with it, and
cashed in big time. They were lauded up and down the halls of romance for
creating such “refreshing, edgy, innovative, authentic” characters. Yeah, Rock
stars. Billionaires. Military themes. All done by "others." All “borrowed.”
That disingenuous, sleight-of-hand doled out by publishers
and most White romance writers who pen “multicultural” romance has lasted and
has made their pockets bulge. But with criticism coming fast, deep and sharp
from romance writers from the communities these White writers think they are depicting so accurately,
that crown the chosen few were given has gotten quite uncomfortable. Most
recent flack has been for their abysmal depictions of the non-White heroines. I
can only speak on non-White heroines in hetero romances. I am not an authority
on LBGTQ+ romances other than that most folk who are from those communities
sort of detests the ones written by non-LBGTQ+ people. Back to non-White
heroines though. Specifically, Black ones. I have blogged about this mess
before and it has not gotten any better. The Black heroines most White writers
create are pitiful. Oh, the ones by some non-White writers suck too but usually
due to scant character development not outright bias. I’ve wondered sometimes
when I’ve read a “multicultural” by a White author if they have even spoken
with, or met, a Black woman. Their ouvres
contain stereotypes in mannerisms, speech and background out the wazoo.
Non-White romance writers who have created humane, multifaceted non-White
characters can’t even get a manuscript read, let alone accepted. But trash submitted by a lot of White romance
writers gets through. Oh, trust and believe. It’s trash. It’s like their heroines
are the amalgamation of every Black female they ever heard or saw on Fox News. I’ve
tried to read trash so insulting that I swore my I. Q. dropped before I DNF’ed it.
The criticism continued, and does, ‘til
this day. So, what was the defense mechanism used against the criticism? The
writers circled the wagons and doubled-down!
The lauded writers, and their wannabes-in-waiting, did not
like having their omnipotent view challenged. They did not, and do not, take
kindly to being told their portraits of “others” suck. Several have taken to
romance book blogs, and to Twitter to lament that they “tried to write a Black
or Asian or whatever heroine but the response was too harsh. “ Waaa! And that
they “won’t do it again because even after having several beta readers” their
masterpieces got trounced!” Waaa! My take? Suck it up, honeys. No one told you
to write a non-White heroine. You chose to for 1) the quick money, 2) the recognition,
3) because you thought you had it on lock, and did I mention 4) the quick
money? But Romancelandia is small. Word gets out when something has an odor. Especially
when it’s one of insincerity. People wait to critique these books when written
by a White author. Why? Because lots of readers believe White authors do it
better. And because you, White author, believe you can do no wrong. The truth
is people, who probably have a better, different view of a heroine who looks
like them, NEVER get the chance to present that view. Comprende? Capisce? I
have always said, “Write what you want. But be prepared to have it analyzed and
critiqued when you leave your lane.” Sentiments most White writers DO NOT heed
when forging ahead into territory unknown. Then they get all butt-hurt when
people eye-ball it.
So, these butt-hurt special snowflakes have decided to get
around that troubling problem of being called on the carpet for piss-poor
depictions of non-White heroines. Oh, they still write the “multicultural” but
these women have gone RETRO. I noticed this trend about a year ago. It was
slight trickle then but now it’s become a steady flow. Retro how, you ask?
They’ve gone back to the “multicultural” of old. The tried-and-true plot where
the focus is on the White heroine going to another land, or simply another part
of town, to find herself through shagging a non-White, half-White hero. The old
360. Like the writer of old, the writer of today only has to stick to
describing, or depicting, the White side of things. Things like the White
heroine’s rising ardor for the non-White/half-White hero. It’s all about her.
No pesky thinking about how to pen a non-White woman and how to explore her
feelings in a love affair. No having to create a profile for a character not
like her. Nope, that woman is not part of this story. Unless of course, she is
the mother or sister to the hero who hates the heroine’s guts. The writer can then
make these women as shrewish as she wants to contrast the gentility of the
heroine. Making it plain that she is sooo not them. Same goes for the heroine’s
view of the hero. You see him though her eyes and he’s this hot, “exotic” man
she’s discovered that she’s always wanted to bone. He doesn’t have to be too
developed. He doesn’t have to have a complex personality. He’s there for one
purpose. The mainstream reader can still say they read a “multicultural.” That
they enjoyed it and most importantly, it was something relatable! “Wow, this place holder is just like me! I felt he was
talking to me when the hero spoke to the heroine! Golly Gee, I like
‘multicultural’ now!”
Just another ingenious, subtly bigoted way to recapture the
top spot in the market in general romance
AND in “multicultural.”
Oh, I could tick off more examples of subtle bigotry hiding
behind a balance sheet that gets sanctioned by the industry, but I’d be here
all day. But for this particular, peculiar occurrence, don’t take my word for
it. Check out the new releases post on the major romance book review blogs. They
are posted on Tuesdays. Scan those suckers. First, one can count on one hand,
with two fingers missing, the covers with NON-WHITE faces in these “new
release” posts. Some weeks there is not a one. And non-White authors? It would
be easier to find ears on a chicken. New Releases my eye. Might as well call it
business as usual. Sneakily but surely, this new breed of “multicultural”
romance shows up in the new releases post with a bare-chested, non-White male
on a book cover all by his lonesome. It is only when one searches on Amazon for
details, does one discover the book is a “multicultural” romance with a White
heroine. Written by a White female author.
.JPG)
